California's congressional map, passed by voters in a ballot measure known as Proposition 50, will remain in use for the upcoming midterm elections after the US Supreme Court declined to block its implementation. The high court's decision comes after a federal appeals panel had previously upheld the map, finding that California lawmakers were motivated by politics rather than race when drawing new congressional district lines.
The map was created in response to Texas Republicans' efforts last year to create a new map that would help their party maintain control of the House of Representatives. California Democrats, however, sought to counter this strategy by crafting a map that would give them five additional seats in the House.
A group of California Republicans filed a lawsuit alleging that the state's legislative process relied predominantly on race and drew several district lines to favor Latino voters, which violated the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Trump administration joined the lawsuit, claiming the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
However, the federal appeals court initially ruled in favor of California, finding that Proposition 50 was a "political gerrymander" designed to flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats. A divided three-judge panel found that there was "overwhelming evidence" that the House district lines were redrawn for partisan purposes.
In its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court's two-judge majority wrote that while Proposition 50 may have had a racial impact in some parts of California, the overall effect of the map was to flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats. The court therefore declined to block the use of the new congressional districts during the 2026 election cycle.
California officials argued that the state's motivation for adopting the Prop 50 map was not driven by race, but rather a desire to counter Texas' political gerrymander and offset the five seats created in the Lone Star State. The League of United Latin American Citizens backed the new lines, arguing that they were approved by more than 7 million voters.
The decision comes as other states are also revising their congressional maps for the 2026 election cycle. In Maryland, a state judge ruled a proposed constitutional amendment allowing Democrats to redraw the state's congressional map was illegal, while in Virginia, a similar attempt was blocked by a federal court.
The map was created in response to Texas Republicans' efforts last year to create a new map that would help their party maintain control of the House of Representatives. California Democrats, however, sought to counter this strategy by crafting a map that would give them five additional seats in the House.
A group of California Republicans filed a lawsuit alleging that the state's legislative process relied predominantly on race and drew several district lines to favor Latino voters, which violated the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Trump administration joined the lawsuit, claiming the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
However, the federal appeals court initially ruled in favor of California, finding that Proposition 50 was a "political gerrymander" designed to flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats. A divided three-judge panel found that there was "overwhelming evidence" that the House district lines were redrawn for partisan purposes.
In its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court's two-judge majority wrote that while Proposition 50 may have had a racial impact in some parts of California, the overall effect of the map was to flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats. The court therefore declined to block the use of the new congressional districts during the 2026 election cycle.
California officials argued that the state's motivation for adopting the Prop 50 map was not driven by race, but rather a desire to counter Texas' political gerrymander and offset the five seats created in the Lone Star State. The League of United Latin American Citizens backed the new lines, arguing that they were approved by more than 7 million voters.
The decision comes as other states are also revising their congressional maps for the 2026 election cycle. In Maryland, a state judge ruled a proposed constitutional amendment allowing Democrats to redraw the state's congressional map was illegal, while in Virginia, a similar attempt was blocked by a federal court.
they say it's more about countering texas Republicans' move but c'mon we all know gerrymandering is super sketchy 
and now other states are dealing with similar issues 
like in maryland where a state judge said the proposed amendment was illegal 
I mean, what's surprising here? The US Supreme Court just declined to block California's new congressional map, which is basically a slap in the face to Texas Republicans who tried to gerrymander their way to power 
. It's like, good luck trying to draw boundaries that benefit your party, but not when the other side has a plan B 
.
. If they can flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats, that's some sweet, sweet electoral revenge 
. And let's be real, the fact that the Trump admin joined a lawsuit against California is just rich 
.
. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. For now, though, props to California for not letting Texas get the last laugh 
.
.
. I mean, come on, California tries to create a new map to counter Texas' gerrymander and now the Supreme Court says it's all good? The whole thing reeks of partisan politics and trying to sway votes. And don't even get me started on the racial angle - it's like they're saying "oh, we didn't mean to draw district lines for Latino voters"... yeah right 
. I mean, California Republicans are trying to claim that the map is biased towards Latinos, but let's be real, they're just mad cuz it gives their party seats to Democrats 
. I'm just glad more voters are getting involved in shaping our democracy 
. But seriously, can't we just have fair and unbiased districts for once? 
And what about those 7 million voters who approved the new lines? Were their voices really heard?